Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 25 Nov 2006 23:31:22
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
well as the advertisement next to it.

Comments are solicited. ;-)

jon

Date: 25 Nov 2006 18:05:53
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

I never could understand how Meade could market the RCX line as an
advanced Ritchey-Chretien. Meade has done a great job of bringing new
innovations to the amateur astronomy market, but that does not give
them the right to mislead their customers. If I slap a coat of red
paint on my new Toyota, could I sell it as an advanced Porsche?

Date: 25 Nov 2006 22:49:53
From: Shawn
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

muddy@despammed.com wrote:
> I never could understand how Meade could market the RCX line as an
> advanced Ritchey-Chretien. Meade has done a great job of bringing new
> innovations to the amateur astronomy market, but that does not give
> them the right to mislead their customers. If I slap a coat of red
> paint on my new Toyota, could I sell it as an advanced Porsche?
>
No, but you could call it a Lexus ;-)
Seems stupid to me to blow huge amounts on a legal battle over a public
domain description. Ritchey-Chretien is hardly a brand name.
Also, how many buyers of $4000, or $40,000 scopes don't know exactly
what they're buying?
Frivolous lawsuits against industry leaders doesn't seem like good
business to me. If I were a potential buyer of such a pricey scope
(HA!), I would question the business sense of the company, and their
ability to make sound decisions into the future. A shuttered company
isn't very good at customer support.
My $0.02

Shawn

Date: 26 Nov 2006 05:58:03
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:49:53 -0700, Shawn
<scurryfifewonniyne@fixthenumberscomcast.net > wrote:

>Seems stupid to me to blow huge amounts on a legal battle over a public
>domain description. Ritchey-Chretien is hardly a brand name.
>Also, how many buyers of $4000, or $40,000 scopes don't know exactly
>what they're buying?
>Frivolous lawsuits against industry leaders doesn't seem like good
>business to me. If I were a potential buyer of such a pricey scope
>(HA!), I would question the business sense of the company, and their
>ability to make sound decisions into the future. A shuttered company
>isn't very good at customer support.
>My $0.02

It's already cost RCOS a sale. I had planned on a 24" RC from them in
the next year or two. No more, however- this isn't a company I want to
deal with anymore.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 06:57:54
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> however- this isn't a company I want to
> deal with anymore.

And Meade is ? Ok... as if they didnt try to
get rid of CI through unrthical means either...

AM

Date: 26 Nov 2006 14:48:52
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:57:54 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>And Meade is ? Ok... as if they didnt try to
>get rid of CI through unrthical means either...

Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
(and I think its arguable) the name of a particular optical system.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 10:04:29
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:

> Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
> unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
> I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
> (and I think its arguable) the name of a particular optical system.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Ok.
I personally think both are just as bad.
Well... maybe Meade worse, they just flat
out tried to run CI out of $$ and business.
And Meade really could have afforded to call
their new design something else.
I would prefer an RCOS telescope over a Meade tho.

Personally, it is disgusting the US business model
of trying to sue your competition out of business...

AM

(on another different Mac... I have three now...)

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:20:25
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:04:29 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>I would prefer an RCOS telescope over a Meade tho.

Technically, so would I. And the fact that Meade is making a scope they
call an RC variant has in no way changed my plans to acquire a true RC
fairly soon. I have a very good idea of what I'll get with an RCX versus
a high-end RC. No confusion at all (even though RCOS apparently thinks
I'm confused <g >).

>Personally, it is disgusting the US business model
>of trying to sue your competition out of business...

Yup. Although more often (and this may include the Meade vs Celestron
fight) it's about using the courts to leverage IP licensing trades.
Still disgusting, though. What's wrong with negotiating such things
privately?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 10:33:18
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> What's wrong with negotiating such things
> privately?

Whats wrong with making a GOOD product and
then selling it on it's virtues ?

One thing I learned about business a long time ago.
You never badmouth the competition, you just
sell yourself (your products) If you have to go after
the competition via legal means, you are doing something
terribly wrong.

None of this helps our hobby at all...

AM

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:56:52
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:33:18 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>> What's wrong with negotiating such things
>> privately?
>
>Whats wrong with making a GOOD product and
>then selling it on it's virtues ?

I didn't mean negotiating disputes privately, I meant negotiating patent
license exchanges privately. Such exchanges are critical to doing
business in today's world, where (literally!) one company has a patent
on "using a screw to attach an encoder" and another has a patent on
"using a rivet to attach an encoder". It's almost impossible to make a
good product anymore without stepping on some petty patent somewhere.

Rather than negotiating trades, companies all too often sue for patent
infringement, with no intention other than forcing an IP trade. It's a
waste of resources for everyone involved.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 12:55:54
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:kobjm21pc56efu8q1fn70nsafotktputgd@4ax.com...
<snip >
> Yup. Although more often (and this may include the Meade vs Celestron
> fight) it's about using the courts to leverage IP licensing trades.
> Still disgusting, though. What's wrong with negotiating such things
> privately?

Although the participants are private companies, the harm caused by claims
about Meade's conduct, if true, are primarily to the free market in general,
or more specifically, the astronomical public.

One of the cardinal and hard-won prinicples of our American economy is open
and fair competition. To this end, Congress and almost all states have
passed consumer protection statutes, also known as unfair consumer practices
laws. Central to preserving a free-market economy based on open and fair
competition is preventing companies from falsely labeling products as having
superior performance or being of a superior design in order to sell products
of lesser quality at inflated prices. Unethical business conduct in the
form of false advertising claims harms the public and the free market - not
just the businesses involved.

Although this particular instance of conduct by Meade, if proven true, only
effects a small consumer market of wealthy individuals, as general
prinicple, if true, similar unethical business conduct, IMHO, should always
be combated for its prophylactic effect on other companies who seek to gain
ill-gotten profits by unfair trade and deceptive practices. The Federal
Trade Commission and many state consumer protection units, regularly file
suits against companies engaged in deceptive and anticompetitive market
conduct.

In terms of protecting free market principles, the suit posted on Rod
Mollise's blogspot raises an important deceptive advertising issue, again
assuming that claims made regarding Meade's conduct are true - which may not
be the case. http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/images/RC_vs_Meade.pdf

Although I am not wealthy and cannot afford to buy a Meade RCX, on
principle, I would be concerned that if any company in general felt that
they can be successful in making deceptive claims about the performance of
their high-end line of products that that kind of unfair business conduct
would "bleed" down into advertising about their low-end line of telescopes
that I can afford to buy.

The public issue of interest is not so much about tactical patent lawsuits
as protecting fair competition, the marketplace and consumers from deceptive
advertising regarding product performance.

Clear skies - Canopus56

Date: 26 Nov 2006 22:39:07
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:55:54 -0700, "canopus56"
<canopus56@NOyahooSPAM.com > wrote:

>Although I am not wealthy and cannot afford to buy a Meade RCX, on
>principle, I would be concerned that if any company in general felt that
>they can be successful in making deceptive claims about the performance of
>their high-end line of products that that kind of unfair business conduct
>would "bleed" down into advertising about their low-end line of telescopes
>that I can afford to buy.

Yes, but it isn't clear to me that any deceptive claims were made here.
There is no real precedent for how generic optical designs are named in
commerce, particularly when modified with adjectives like "enhanced".
Details of the actual optical performance were, in fact, made available,
and the RCX design appears to have better optical performance in many
respects than an equivalent sized RC. I also read the posted lawsuit,
and I simply don't see how anybody was harmed, either the public or
RCOS.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 27 Nov 2006 10:42:53
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in
news:ni5km2lg64h2jj2bid82gljglpqlhecrfh@4ax.com:

> "enhanced". Details of the actual optical performance were, in fact,
> made available, and the RCX design appears to have better optical
> performance in many respects than an equivalent sized RC. I also read

An interesting side effect of the lawsuit, at least in my mind: I am
beginning to believe that if RCOS goes to that length, the Meade design
really works well.

And anyway, does anyone believe an authentic RCOS prospect could be
_misled_ into buying a Meade RCX? Azari, the phantom shopper, is a cute but
not believable character.

--
Pierre

Date: 27 Nov 2006 21:48:35
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Date: 28 Nov 2006 03:00:43
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in
news:T2Jah.10311$yE6.6406@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

>> An interesting side effect of the lawsuit, at least in my mind: I am
>> beginning to believe that if RCOS goes to that length, the Meade
>> design really works well.
>
> Then you probably still believe in Santa Claus <g>

I don't see Meade customers filing complaints for poor performance.

> "Improved Ritchey Chretien" That is easily misconstrued as to mean...
>
> Improved = Better than an RCOS

They didn't say "improved RCOS" - as far as I know, RCOS doesn't own the
"Ritchey Chretien" name. Misleading, maybe, but that is customers that
should complain, if they feel they were misled. But it is hard to see
anyone buying a RCX without a minimum of research, without having read at
least a review, and it is hard to see a review that doesn't mention the
uncertainties surrounding the nature of the optical design.

> seem to like them and compare them with a *real* Ritchey even though
> they have no experience with one.

If one compares the results, one doesn't need to have first hand
experience with the scope. One only needs to look at images produced by
both systems.

> But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
> mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA. A who's who
> glance at the owners list of RCOS would support this thought.

To some point, I agree, and that is the way it should be. This being
said, improvements in design, industrial processes etc.. can and usually
do change the equation over time.

>> And anyway, does anyone believe an authentic RCOS prospect could be
>> _misled_ into buying a Meade RCX? Azari, the phantom shopper, is a
>> cute but not believable character.

> Since he's one of the complainants you can be assured that he is real.

Have you actually read the complaint? He is simply too much.

> It's easy to see this unless one has Meade tattooed on their ass. And
> fans of the SCT can take solace in the fact that Celestron seems to be
> above this type of skulduggery.

While I do own an ETX 125 that I don't actually use, I also have a C11, a
Vixen R200SS, a couple of apos and a Lichtenknecker Flat Field camera: I
can fairly state that I don't even own a virtual Meade tatoo ;)

In fact, I decided to avoid Meade as much as it is possible when they
sued Celestron.

> could be large. And while Meade may not sell many to private
> individuals the sale of scopes to Universities and such is much more
> lucrative.

And I don't expect universities to make uninformed purchases or send
repeated e-mails to "someones@yahoo.com" asking them if they are buying
"Hubble like performance". If universities are happy with large scopes
from Meade, why wouldn't the general public also be?

As a customer, I am trending towards the high-end (going from ETX to FFC
in a few years) and would probably purchase a RC if I had a fixed setup
under decent skies. What this lawsuit achieved, afaic, is to give a bit
more credit to Meade's offer.

What comes next? Bisque suing Meade on the looks of their high end
robotic mount?

Date: 28 Nov 2006 04:47:32
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pierre Vandevenne wrote:

>
> I don't see Meade customers filing complaints for poor performance.
>

Pierre,

From my understanding one of the complainants *is* a Meade customer. Or
was :(

>> "Improved Ritchey Chretien" That is easily misconstrued as to mean...
>>
>> Improved = Better than an RCOS
>
> They didn't say "improved RCOS" - as far as I know, RCOS doesn't own the
> "Ritchey Chretien" name. Misleading, maybe, but that is customers that
> should complain, if they feel they were misled.

I never inferred that Meade said this. But the statement "Improved
Ritchey Chretien Design" needs some validation. Most people would
consider that "improved" must be better. Otherwise why improve it ?!?!
And that statement may or may not be true. But it is at least
questionable. Had Meade marketed this as being an improved SCT no one
would have given a rats ass about the claim. I'm reasonably certain that
Celestron wouldn't have filed a suit over it.

> But it is hard to see
> anyone buying a RCX without a minimum of research, without having read at
> least a review, and it is hard to see a review that doesn't mention the
> uncertainties surrounding the nature of the optical design.

Really ? there are literally hundreds of just such purchases made every
year and little or no research was apparently done. Or more likely the
experience level of the person making the decision was lacking. The
price tag means little here. People still make bad decisions even on
expensive items. You, or I might not. But others do.

>
>> seem to like them and compare them with a *real* Ritchey even though
>> they have no experience with one.
>
> If one compares the results, one doesn't need to have first hand
> experience with the scope. One only needs to look at images produced by
> both systems.

Sorry but I don't agree. Electronic images can be manipulated in a
myriad of ways to cover up a multitude of sins. So this isn't proof at
all. But I don't see anyone selling a *real* RC to purchase an RCX
either. But I might have missed it. <g >

>
>> But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
>> mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA. A who's who
>> glance at the owners list of RCOS would support this thought.
>
> To some point, I agree, and that is the way it should be. This being
> said, improvements in design, industrial processes etc.. can and usually
> do change the equation over time.

Exactly.... Meade's RCX is a much improved SCT design in a number of
ways. And of course, a dismal failure in others. But those failures have
little to do with the actual optics. Chris is correct that Meade
generally produces good optics. Their problems generally lie elsewhere.

>
>>> And anyway, does anyone believe an authentic RCOS prospect could be
>>> _misled_ into buying a Meade RCX? Azari, the phantom shopper, is a
>>> cute but not believable character.
>
>> Since he's one of the complainants you can be assured that he is real.
>
> Have you actually read the complaint? He is simply too much.

I am not an attorney but I have glanced through it and spoken with two
of the complainants and understand their position.

>
>> It's easy to see this unless one has Meade tattooed on their ass. And
>> fans of the SCT can take solace in the fact that Celestron seems to be
>> above this type of skulduggery.
>
> While I do own an ETX 125 that I don't actually use, I also have a C11, a
> Vixen R200SS, a couple of apos and a Lichtenknecker Flat Field camera: I
> can fairly state that I don't even own a virtual Meade tatoo ;)

This is a *good* thing ! <g >

>
> In fact, I decided to avoid Meade as much as it is possible when they
> sued Celestron.

A wise man. I too became less enamored of them because of this. But I
have no false hopes that Meades bottom line even noticed my non
participation <lol >

> As a customer, I am trending towards the high-end (going from ETX to FFC
> in a few years) and would probably purchase a RC if I had a fixed setup
> under decent skies. What this lawsuit achieved, afaic, is to give a bit
> more credit to Meade's offer.

Then buy the Meade and report back to all of us how much better it is
than a real RC.

>
> What comes next? Bisque suing Meade on the looks of their high end
> robotic mount?
>

Hummmmmm interesting that you noticed the similarity.... What if Ford
decided to come out with a car that had the BMW trademark grill ? Think
that BMW wouldn't sue ? Would they have the right to do so ? In my
opinion Bisque could sue them. As to if they would actually win ? who
knows. But I would never spend that kind of money on a Meade mount. Not
until they proved to me they could manufacture one that actually worked.
But I'll freely admit to being very cynical about Meades ability to
produce a mount that is in the same class as a AP1200, Bisque or MI750.

Regards

Bill

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:36:57
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in
news:EbPah.10401$yE6.9009@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> Sorry but I don't agree. Electronic images can be manipulated in a
> myriad of ways to cover up a multitude of sins. So this isn't proof at

I thought you would agree on that one, since you told me earlier to look
at what imagers were publishing on a web as a proof of the superiority of
the RCOS scopes (and I actually agree).

Why would the "pretty image" test be a proof of RCOS superiority?

Pretty images are exactly what RCOS resellers use as a promotional tool
btw

see http://www.atscope.com.au/rcos.html

for example.

I agree that there is much more to it, as the quality of the focuser, the
thermal stability of the design, the stability of collimation, lack of
mirro flop etc... but still, the argument appears valid.

> have little to do with the actual optics. Chris is correct that Meade
> generally produces good optics. Their problems generally lie
> elsewhere.

Apparently that is not the focus of the lawsuit. BTW <chuckles > a good
lawsuit against meade would be a "rusting nuts and bolts" class action.

> Then buy the Meade and report back to all of us how much better it is
> than a real RC.

Well, most of the arguments so far have been about Meade's poor QC,
inferior mechanics, etc... I agree with them, and probably will stay away
of them (because of the lawsuit, because of the fact that I live in
Europe, where support/warranty coverage for Meade stuff is awful). But
the lawsuit is basically about optics.

> Hummmmmm interesting that you noticed the similarity.... What if Ford
> decided to come out with a car that had the BMW trademark grill ?
> Think that BMW wouldn't sue ? Would they have the right to do so ? In

Well the machined look of the Paramount, while unique (at least I think
so) in the astronomical mount market, isn't something particularly
innovative and unique in general - may industrial robots have the same
look.

The last time I asked my reseller, Bisque seemed to have a full pipe-
line. They might be too busy innovating, doing QC and developing stuff. I
can't help but believe that it would be better for the amateur
astronomical community if those lawsuits did not happen.

And, when the dust settles, could we again see clever Chinese pick up the
pieces? ;-)

Date: 27 Nov 2006 22:24:36
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:48:35 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
<wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

>But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
>mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA...

But that doesn't mean that the optical design can't be better (or better
in some respects, since with telescopes there are always tradeoffs). It
makes sense that a high end, almost custom made scope will be better in
most ways than a mass produced scope, but that's not what the lawsuit is
about.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 27 Nov 2006 23:23:29
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:48:35 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
> <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
>> mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA...
>
> But that doesn't mean that the optical design can't be better (or better
> in some respects, since with telescopes there are always tradeoffs). It
> makes sense that a high end, almost custom made scope will be better in
> most ways than a mass produced scope, but that's not what the lawsuit is
> about.
>

Name one respect in which the Meade SCT (faux Ritchey) is actually
improved over the Classic RC Design. Please provide links other than
Meade's BS Marketing Hype.

Thank You

Bill

Date: 27 Nov 2006 23:34:27
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:23:29 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
<wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

>Name one respect in which the Meade SCT (faux Ritchey) is actually
>improved over the Classic RC Design. Please provide links other than
>Meade's BS Marketing Hype.

No. I could as easily ask you to demonstrate how Meade's specs are just
"BS Marketing Hype".

But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if the design is better or
not. It doesn't matter if the scopes are better are not. The suit has
nothing to do with that. The suit claims that RCOS is losing business
because Meade uses the words "Ritchey-Chretien" as part of their product
description. I personally think that's silly, and my respect for Brad
Ehrhorn is pretty much in the tank now. We'll see what happens in the
courts.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 02:24:41
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:23:29 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
> <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> No. I could as easily ask you to demonstrate how Meade's specs are just
> "BS Marketing Hype".
>
> But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if the design is better or
> not. It doesn't matter if the scopes are better are not.

Chris,

Not to be pedantic but it does matter because you parroted the Meade
hype as fact. Which has yet to be demonstrably proven. Look at the
complainants in the aforementioned action and you can bet your knickers
that at least one of those complainants has information regarding the
actual RCX design that must support their position. But I'll freely
admit that a number of people will view this suit as frivolous as is
their right. Probably as frivolous as Meades suit against Celestron <g >.

> The suit has
> nothing to do with that. The suit claims that RCOS is losing business
> because Meade uses the words "Ritchey-Chretien" as part of their product
> description. I personally think that's silly, and my respect for Brad
> Ehrhorn is pretty much in the tank now.

I don't expect you to agree with this mind you <g > but that is a gross
oversimplification of the suit. One of the complainants feels like he
*was* led astray by one of the vendors and this position was likely
fueled by the Meade advertising. You appear to be, in my opinion,
fixated on Brad's involvement, neglecting the other two parties concerns
with this. One of whom *was* a Meade customer.

But even with all of that being said I can respect the fact that you
like Meade products. However there are many, many disillusioned amateurs
out there who are frustrated by Meade equipment and various design flaws
over the years. And you cannot discount the popularity of the RCOS
scopes by those advanced amateurs having purchased them.

> We'll see what happens in the courts.

Indeed .... and regardless of how it turns out I think that those people
supporting Meade probably wouldn't have been a potential customer of
RCOS anyway so it won't affect the balance sheet at either company.
So at some level I actually agree with you, should we notify the media ?
<g > But it will probably at least provide some insight into the
marketing strategies of both companies and give us a lot of things to
discuss along the way. And this is *good* thing. A lot more people will
be familiar with what a Ritchey actually is too.

To restate my position on this to clarify things..... I thought it
ludicrous that Meade hyped the RCX and the LX200R as "advanced Ritchey
Chretien Optics. I read all of the Meade provided information and became
even more cynical after doing so. And I certainly would not refrain
from buying an RCOS because of this suit. *If* I felt that Meade was the
better product I'd buy that, or an OGS or whatever.

Regards

Bill

Date: 28 Nov 2006 03:54:59
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:24:41 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
<wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

>But even with all of that being said I can respect the fact that you
>like Meade products...

Actually, I'm not terribly impressed with Meade. I think they make great
optics (and I do think it's very possible that an RCX scope could
outperform a classical RC on paper- not surprising, since an SCT can do
that, too), but they have lousy QC and to get everything out of one of
their products generally requires additional effort on the part of the
buyer. That's too bad, and it shouldn't be that way, but for whatever
reason Meade has chosen not to make many trivial and inexpensive fixes
to their designs. That's a shame, because for maybe a couple of hundred
dollars their cost they could be seriously competing with the top end
players.

The RCX design seems great to me, but Meade screwed up too much to make
it a viable choice for my upgrade. Basically, the same crappy mount as
the LX200s has. And no way to separate the OTA while retaining the
functionality of the focusing and collimating system. And of course, as
is always the case with Meade, QC issues.

I've been able to get a lot of good results with Meade equipment- on a
par with what I could get with much better stuff, but for much less
money (and a lot more work on my part). But I'm realistic about what it
is they make, and the 20"-24" (probably RC) I'm in the market for now
obviously isn't coming from Meade (and wouldn't, even if they made one).

>Indeed .... and regardless of how it turns out I think that those people
>supporting Meade probably wouldn't have been a potential customer of
>RCOS anyway so it won't affect the balance sheet at either company.

Just to be clear, in this case I'm not supporting Meade so much as
showing my disgust for those suing them. My next scope won't be from
Meade or RCOS (although RCOS had been my likely source). We'll see. I
might end up just buying the optics and doing the rest myself. No
problem with QC that way!

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 03:11:05
From: Pierre Vandevenne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in news:J5Nah.10368
$yE6.2016@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> Indeed .... and regardless of how it turns out I think that those people
> supporting Meade probably wouldn't have been a potential customer of
> RCOS anyway so it won't affect the balance sheet at either company.

Hmmmmmm, so what exactly is RCOS complaining about then? :-)

Date: 03 Dec 2006 03:21:53
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" < > wrote
> ......
> I suppose we could include OGS here as well since they also produce
> RC's.........

OGS? Since John Stiles is also a Meade dealer would he have to sue himself??
:)

Actually OGS stopped selling Meades years ago after a battle over a
defective refractor that took months to get fixed, much to the displeasure
of the OGS customer, a university in India.

> ......
> And furthermore I really doubt that this litigation has much to do with
> the smaller 10 and 12 inch varieties. It seems to be aimed at the much
> larger versions, 24 inch, and given their price point the damages could be
> large. And while Meade may not sell many to private individuals the sale
> of scopes to Universities and such is much more lucrative.

I don't know about RCOS, but I do know that less than a third of OGS sales
(in dollars, not scopes) are to individuals. The biggest OGS customers are
the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin, plus universities, museums, etc. From
recently helping with the purchase of an astro CCD camera by the State
University of New York I can tell you that the purchase decision is made by
the school business office, not the professors or using department. The
routine was: "Give us 3 quotes and we'll make the purchase and we don't care
which camera you think is best!" I can see how that could lead to Meade
sales of 14 to 20 inch scopes.

As for Meade's concern about sales: I think that it's more of a 'status
thing' if the Company 7 website can be believed. Their webpage on Meade
states that over 85% of Meade sales are generated by small cheap scopes sold
to Wal-Mart.

George N

Date: 03 Dec 2006 12:26:54
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"George Normandin" <georgepn@worldnet.att.net > wrote in
news:lprch.412739$QZ1.74127@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> As for Meade's concern about sales: I think that it's more of a
> 'status thing' if the Company 7 website can be believed. Their webpage
> on Meade states that over 85% of Meade sales are generated by small
> cheap scopes sold to Wal-Mart.

This is from their yearly report: advanced telescopes is roughly everything
above 7 inches and the Coronado stuff.

"Advanced astronomical telescopes collectively represented approximately
1%, 2%,and 3% of telescope units shipped and approximately 11%, 17% and 21%
of the Company�s net sales for its fiscal years ended February 28/29, 2005,
2004 and 2003, respectively."

Entry level scopes:

"Sales of entry-level telescopes comprised approximately 99%, 98% and 97%
of the Company�s telescope units shipped and approximately 34%, 35% and 36%
of the Company�s net sales for the fiscal years ended February 28/29, 2005,
2004 and 2003, respectively."

Binoculars

"represented approximately 23%, 21% and 24% of the Company�s net sales
during those fiscal years, respectively"

Riflescopes

"represented approximately 20%, 18% and 8% of the Company�s net sales for
its fiscal years ended February 28/29, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively"

Date: 03 Dec 2006 00:09:54
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:23:29 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
> <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Name one respect in which the Meade SCT (faux Ritchey) is actually
> >improved over the Classic RC Design. Please provide links other than
> >Meade's BS Marketing Hype.
>
> No. I could as easily ask you to demonstrate how Meade's specs are just
> "BS Marketing Hype".
>
> But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if the design is better or
> not. It doesn't matter if the scopes are better are not. The suit has
> nothing to do with that. The suit claims that RCOS is losing business
> because Meade uses the words "Ritchey-Chretien" as part of their product
> description. I personally think that's silly, and my respect for Brad
> Ehrhorn is pretty much in the tank now. We'll see what happens in the
> courts.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Let's start with "flat imaging plane" when in point of fact it is
curved and S&T in an article about the RCX states that Meade is
preparing a field flattner

Date: 27 Nov 2006 18:06:50
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

William R. Mattil wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:48:35 GMT, "William R. Mattil"
> > <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But the bottom line is this...... There is no way in hell that a $8K
> >> mass produced scope can compare favorably with a $20K OTA...
> >
> > But that doesn't mean that the optical design can't be better (or better
> > in some respects, since with telescopes there are always tradeoffs). It
> > makes sense that a high end, almost custom made scope will be better in
> > most ways than a mass produced scope, but that's not what the lawsuit is
> > about.
> >
>
> Name one respect in which the Meade SCT (faux Ritchey) is actually
> improved over the Classic RC Design. Please provide links other than
> Meade's BS Marketing Hype.

No diffraction spikes.

Roland Christen chimed in with some other aspects in Yahoo's RCX400
group.

Like it or not, Meade did come up with neat stuff in the RCX400.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 19:37:40
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:49:53 -0700, Shawn
<scurryfifewonniyne@fixthenumberscomcast.net > wrote:

>No, but you could call it a Lexus ;-)
>Seems stupid to me to blow huge amounts on a legal battle over a public
>domain description. Ritchey-Chretien is hardly a brand name.

No, but it IS a specific optical design with well-defined parameters,
and those don't include a corrector plate or spherical mirror.

>Also, how many buyers of $4000, or $40,000 scopes don't know exactly
>what they're buying?

When I first heard about the RCX not quite being a Ritchey-Chretien,
I said, not quite a Ritchey-Chretien, then lets remove two 'e's and
a 'y'. That leaves us with "Rich Cretin".

Yes, there *are* people out there with lots of extra money to spend,
an interest in Astronomy, and not enough knowledge of optics to
understand the fine-print details.

>Frivolous lawsuits against industry leaders doesn't seem like good
>business to me. If I were a potential buyer of such a pricey scope
>(HA!), I would question the business sense of the company, and their
>ability to make sound decisions into the future. A shuttered company
>isn't very good at customer support.
>My $0.02
>
>
>Shawn

I don't think this lawsuit is at all frivolous. Meade DID market the
RCX as a Ritchey-Chretien ("based", if you read the fine print), and
is selling it at a price lower than any real R-C could go for. The
plaintiffs HAVE seen a precipitous drop in sales since the RCX came on
the market. The RCX is NOT a Ritchey-Chretien.

What the court has to decide is if this is cause and effect. Would
the plaintiffs also have seen a drop-off in sales if the RCX had been
put on the market under another name? I'm sure that very question
will come before the court.

Whichever way the case turns out, I think it's high time that scope
manufacturers stop poaching on the reputations of names such as
"Plossl" and "Ritchey-Chretien" to market products that aren't using
those designs.

-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 09 Dec 2006 11:26:25
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On 2006-12-09 04:37 +0900, Paul Winalski wrote:

> plaintiffs HAVE seen a precipitous drop in sales since the RCX came on
> the market. The RCX is NOT a Ritchey-Chretien.

Does anybody in this thread honestly believe that a person or
organization would seriously order an RCOS _because_ it's an RC and then
jump ship to Meade _because_ their LX200R and RCX designs are marketed
as "Advanced RCs"? Honestly? I don't.

Has nobody else caught that the RCOS suit is claiming Meade advertises
their scopes as 'advanced "Ritchey-Chretien"' and 'Ritchey-Chretien'
designs? Look at that carefully now. There is a distinction in the
English language between 'Advanced Ritchey-Chretien', 'Ritchey-Chretien'
and 'advanced "Ritchey-Chretien"'. The terms do not mean the same thing.

I simply have trouble believing that RCOS sales have been affected by
Meade due to an apparent optical design misrepresentation on Meade's
part. Much more credible is that the RCX performs well enough regardless
of its marketing hype so that a segment of purchasers is buying the
scope because it actually suits their needs and they don't need to spend
more money to reach that level of performance. RCOS is pissed about it.
MUCH more credible.

> What the court has to decide is if this is cause and effect. Would

Exactly.

> the plaintiffs also have seen a drop-off in sales if the RCX had been
> put on the market under another name? I'm sure that very question
> will come before the court.

I'm sure it will, and I sincerely expect a court of _our_ peers to fully
appreciate that RCOS has a very different market, by and large, than Meade.

> Whichever way the case turns out, I think it's high time that scope
> manufacturers stop poaching on the reputations of names such as
> "Plossl" and "Ritchey-Chretien" to market products that aren't using
> those designs.

Again, the question worth asking is whether these names create any
confusion. If somebody with a true 4-element Ploessl sells their EP for
20,000 Imperial Credits and faces competition from a different supplier
selling a 5-element Advanced Ploessl that performs a little less well
but only costs 8,000 Imperial Credits, it is fair to assume that Company
A's 4-element design might see a hit in sales. Given the knowledge known
to be common in Company A's clients, however, it is not reasonable to
believe that the sales hit Company A experienced was because of the word
"Ploessl" used in advertising by Company B. It is well (and reasonably)
expected that Company A's clients understand basic design and know how
many elements a true Ploessl design has and can easily recognize
modified/different designs due to the number of elements.

Another aspect here is whether anybody who _isn't_ a Meade basher
honestly believes that "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien" means "Exactly
Ritchey-Chretien", because it assuredly doesn't to me. When I see the
words Advanced or Modified or Super, it's implicitly understood that the
design has been altered for one or more reasons. In that light, then, it
is reasonable to believe that no confusion could exist in the average
buyer of an RCOS telescope.

The key should be to prove damages by showing there was reasonable
confusion in an average RCOS client that resulted in some sales being
lost by RCOS as a direct result of that confusion.

Some might claim that I'm some sort of Meade supporter and RCOS basher
and that would hardly be the case. I own telescopes by neither company.
I like my Celestron because it has never let me down in having something
about which to whine. ;-)

The fact that I'm not a lawyer doesn't stop me from ruminating on it. ;)

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 09 Dec 2006 08:37:58
From: AM
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Trane Francks wrote:

> I simply have trouble believing that RCOS sales have been affected by
> Meade due to an apparent optical design misrepresentation on Meade's
> part.

There used to be a restaurant named Sonys
in Southern Ca.

Well SONY up and sued them until they won,
and a restaurant that had been around long before
the electronic giant ever came along had to change
their name.

Good news is that Meade will be way to busy to
sue Celestron again. I mean, we all know how much
they want to.......

--

AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

OS X 10.3.9

Date: 09 Dec 2006 07:48:34
From: David G. Nagel
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

AM wrote:
> Trane Francks wrote:
>
>> I simply have trouble believing that RCOS sales have been affected by
>> Meade due to an apparent optical design misrepresentation on Meade's
>> part.
>
>
>
>
> There used to be a restaurant named Sonys
> in Southern Ca.
>
> Well SONY up and sued them until they won,
> and a restaurant that had been around long before
> the electronic giant ever came along had to change
> their name.
>
>
> Good news is that Meade will be way to busy to
> sue Celestron again. I mean, we all know how much
> they want to.......
>
>
>
>
Sears and Roebuck did the same thing to a Dry Cleaner in New York State
some years ago. Sears and Roebuck lost. Size doesn't matter. Besides the
Dry Cleaner still had a Sears working for it. The owner.

Dave N

Date: 09 Dec 2006 12:23:16
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:37:58 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>There used to be a restaurant named Sonys
>in Southern Ca.
>
>Well SONY up and sued them until they won,
>and a restaurant that had been around long before
>the electronic giant ever came along had to change
>their name.

Do you have a reference? That sounds like an urban legend. If this
happened, the restaurant must have had some very bad legal help, or they
just caved without really fighting. Trademark law in the U.S. is quite
clear about duplicated names, and in order to infringe you need to be in
the same kind of business, or be obviously using the name in a way that
capitalizes on somebody else's name. That's why Lexus versus Lexis-Nexis
failed- the court held that there was no chance of someone confusing a
database service with a car.

It seems more likely to me that the restaurant simply accepted a nice
settlement in exchange for using a different name.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 10 Dec 2006 21:02:44
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:26:25 +0900, Trane Francks <trane@gol.com >
wrote:

>I simply have trouble believing that RCOS sales have been affected by
>Meade due to an apparent optical design misrepresentation on Meade's
>part.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit alleges that this is precisely what
happened to them. This plaintiff alleges that they ordered a Meade
scope, having been assured by the retailer that it was a Ritchey-
Chretien, and then, having received the scope, found that it wasn't
a Ritchey-Chretien. RCOS and the other R-C manufacturers allege that
they then called up the retailers named as co-defendents and asked
them if the Meade scopes were Ritchey-Chretiens, and allegedly the
retailers said "yes". That is why they are named as co-defendents.

Just recently, one of the retailers, Anacortes Telescope and Bird,
has settled with the plaintiffs. ACT&B has stopped calling the
Meade scopes Ritchey-Chretiens, and in return an amended complaint
has been filed dropping them as a co-defendant. Allegedly the same
settlement offer has been made to the other retailers named in the
suit.

> Much more credible is that the RCX performs well enough regardless
>of its marketing hype so that a segment of purchasers is buying the
>scope because it actually suits their needs and they don't need to spend
>more money to reach that level of performance. RCOS is pissed about it.
>MUCH more credible.

The RCX unquestionably has lowered the price umbrella for flat field
astrographs within its size range. Meade is to be praised for a very
clever innovation that has made that possible.

>I'm sure it will, and I sincerely expect a court of _our_ peers to fully
>appreciate that RCOS has a very different market, by and large, than Meade.

But they apparently do intersect. One of the plaintiffs is a customer
who claims to have purchased the Meade after being assured it's a
Ritchey-Cretien, only to find out that it isn't. An interesting
question that I'm sure will come up when the case is argued is, would
this customer have ponied up the extra bucks to buy a "real R-C" from
one of the plaintiff vendors?

>Another aspect here is whether anybody who _isn't_ a Meade basher
>honestly believes that "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien" means "Exactly
>Ritchey-Chretien", because it assuredly doesn't to me. When I see the
>words Advanced or Modified or Super, it's implicitly understood that the
>design has been altered for one or more reasons. In that light, then, it
>is reasonable to believe that no confusion could exist in the average
>buyer of an RCOS telescope.

True, until one reaches the point where the advancement or
modification removes an essential element of the item. For example,
what if I come up with "Super Potato Chips" where the innovation is to
use something other than potatoes? Does the lack of a hyperbolic
mirror render the RCX no longer in any way a Ritchey-Chretien? This
I'm sure will be one of the points to be argued.

Suppose I were a fast food chain and I decided I wanted to sell
grilled ground pork patties. Would I be allowed to call them "Super
Hamburgers"? I don't think so, because the term "hamburger" implies
ground beef.

>The key should be to prove damages by showing there was reasonable
>confusion in an average RCOS client that resulted in some sales being
>lost by RCOS as a direct result of that confusion.

Exactly.

>Some might claim that I'm some sort of Meade supporter and RCOS basher
>and that would hardly be the case. I own telescopes by neither company.
>I like my Celestron because it has never let me down in having something
>about which to whine. ;-)
>
>The fact that I'm not a lawyer doesn't stop me from ruminating on it. ;)

I'm not, either. Nor do I own a scope from either Meade or RCOS. But
I still contend that to use names such as "Plossl" or
"Ritchey-Chretien" for designs that differ by a key element from the
original is unethical and deceptive, even if it might be legal. You
don't see TeleVue calling their wide-angle eyepieces "Advanced
Erfles", even though that was one of the starting points for
coming up with their designs.

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:28:10
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Paul Winalski <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com > wrote in
news:igron2tt18s6pj4a6ues8hqf5ck4ct3glt@4ax.com:

> scope, having been assured by the retailer that it was a Ritchey-
> Chretien, and then, having received the scope, found that it wasn't
> a Ritchey-Chretien.

A-ma-zing. Dan Azari's insight leaves me speechless.

http://lnk.nu/astro.louisville.edu/ca5.rcos

Date: 12 Dec 2006 01:08:23
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pierre Vandevennne wrote:
> Paul Winalski <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com> wrote in
> news:igron2tt18s6pj4a6ues8hqf5ck4ct3glt@4ax.com:
>
>> scope, having been assured by the retailer that it was a Ritchey-
>> Chretien, and then, having received the scope, found that it wasn't
>> a Ritchey-Chretien.
>
> A-ma-zing. Dan Azari's insight leaves me speechless.
>
> http://lnk.nu/astro.louisville.edu/ca5.rcos

Pierre,

What is it that makes a software person a "great" judge of an optical
system ? Or more or less prone to advertising BS ? And really does it
matter ? An individual contacted a telescope dealer and was persuaded to
purchase a Meade in lieu of a *real* Ritchey. This could have been
anybody and it has likely happened before from other salespeople at
other retailers as well. If you take the time to read the RCOS position
you will find that they aren't after any money at all. They want the
false advertising stopped. Which it would be if Meade had any character.
But after the success from their last suit against Celestron they are
probably feeling a bit full of themselves <g >

I think you are too hung up on who Azari is. And I'm not certain that
his position is relevant. It would probably make a better defense to
simply deny that the employee ever suggested the Meade.

Bill

Date: 12 Dec 2006 11:45:37
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in news:binfh.11128
$wc5.6859@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

>> http://lnk.nu/astro.louisville.edu/ca5.rcos

> I think you are too hung up on who Azari is. And I'm not certain that
> his position is relevant.

You've been wrong before on this very topic ;-)

http://lnk.nu/groups.google.be/cah

But I guess this is a matter of perception. Anyway, leaving aside what the
courts will think of the issue the impression it leaves me is that they
could not find a genuine Meade customer unhappy enough about his RCX to sue
along and that is why they had to ask one of their employees / contractors
/ associates to pose as one.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 14:42:41
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pierre Vandevennne wrote:
> "William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:binfh.11128
> $wc5.6859@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>> I think you are too hung up on who Azari is. And I'm not certain that
>> his position is relevant.
>
> You've been wrong before on this very topic ;-)
>
> http://lnk.nu/groups.google.be/cah

Not proven at all. You are not understanding what is actually happening
here. <g >

>
> But I guess this is a matter of perception.

Indeed it is.

> Anyway, leaving aside what the
> courts will think of the issue the impression it leaves me is that they
> could not find a genuine Meade customer unhappy enough about his RCX to sue
> along and that is why they had to ask one of their employees / contractors
> / associates to pose as one.

Ok - I'll type this slowly so that perhaps you'll get it. This suit
isn't about anyone being "unhappy" with the Meade RCX or 200R. This suit
is about the false claims made by the plantifs in regards to the optics.
Personally I think Meade is pure crap .... but that is also not relevant
here. What is relevant is that claims have been made that certain
dealers are touting the phoney Ritchey as having real Ritchey optics and
anyone with half a functioning brain cell would admit that it is *not* a
Ritchey. I am not surprised that Meade is being sued over this. But
after reviewing what RCOS was really wanting I had hoped that Meade
would amend their advertising and make it go away. Because it is the
right thing to do. But the arrogance displayed by Meade with this is
appalling and I find it curious that you refuse to acknowledge this.

Now .... lets discuss the actual Meade RCX .... you mention that
apparently no one is unhappy with their RCX ?!?!? You are aware that
they (Meade) have had a high percentage of failures with this design ?
Why do you think that Meade came out with the LX200R ? and went back to
the moving primary mirror system ?

And to cap it all off.... I certainly don't recall seeing a number of
posts by you supporting poor old Celestron when they were being sued and
then crying foul when Meade persisted and ultimately won. And yet you
still choose to patronize a company that behaves in such a manner. One
can only conclude that you are currently on the waiting list for an RCOS
scope <g >

A Hubble for your backyard ?!?!? Indeed ....

Bill

>
>
>

Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:33:48
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in
news:Bdzfh.11264$wc5.2742@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> Ok - I'll type this slowly so that perhaps you'll get it. This suit

Apparently, I did get some things you, by your own admission, missed...
simply be reading the lawsuit. It ain't rocket science.

No need to get into personal attacks.

> Because it is the right thing to do. But the arrogance displayed by
> Meade with this is appalling and I find it curious that you refuse to
> acknowledge this.

As it has been pointed many times already, those mis-appropriations happen
all the time in the astronomy equipment world. Plossl, super apos, apos who
aren't apos, monocentrics, etc... There are things that are genuinely
misleading for the uninformed customers: the pretty pictures an almost all
low end scope boxes for example.

> Now .... lets discuss the actual Meade RCX .... you mention that
> apparently no one is unhappy with their RCX ?!?!?

I did not say that. What I said is that apparently RCOS couldn't find
someone unhappy enough to sue along. That is probably why they asked one of
their employee/contractor/associate to play the role of the dumb shopper.

> And to cap it all off.... I certainly don't recall seeing a number of
> posts by you supporting poor old Celestron when they were being sued

Youn recall wrongly. Google is your friend.

> you still choose to patronize a company that behaves in such a manner.

I don't - please check the thread if you don't remember which instruments I
own.

> One can only conclude that you are currently on the waiting list for
> an RCOS scope <g>

I don't support that type of company, sorry (exactly for the same reason I
haven't bought from Meade after the initial ETX-125).

Date: 17 Dec 2006 20:44:51
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On 2006-12-11 06:02 +0900, Paul Winalski wrote:

Sorry for the very late reply. I've been abroad on business.

> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:26:25 +0900, Trane Francks <trane@gol.com>
> wrote:

>>I'm sure it will, and I sincerely expect a court of _our_ peers to fully
>>appreciate that RCOS has a very different market, by and large, than Meade.
>
> But they apparently do intersect. One of the plaintiffs is a customer
> who claims to have purchased the Meade after being assured it's a
> Ritchey-Cretien, only to find out that it isn't. An interesting

That plaintiff, Dan Azari, is an RCOS technical programmer, isn't he?
It's not reasonable to expect Azari was confused by Meade's advertising.
It is, however, reasonable to expect that Azari and RCOS are in cahoots
with each other in the execution of this legal maneuvering.

> question that I'm sure will come up when the case is argued is, would
> this customer have ponied up the extra bucks to buy a "real R-C" from
> one of the plaintiff vendors?

Considering that our phantom shopper has a history with RCOS hardware
already, I think it's fair to speculate that he's already ponied up
those extra bucks. Whether he would have purchased one from one of the
named defendants is a different story. Dealing direct seems more likely.

> use something other than potatoes? Does the lack of a hyperbolic
> mirror render the RCX no longer in any way a Ritchey-Chretien? This
> I'm sure will be one of the points to be argued.

It probably will be, but then you have to consider that the design of
the optical system is not patented or copyrighted. Moreover, Meade has
been careful to advertise it as an "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien". The
capitals in all words make it fully a proper name, and therefore it
could even be claimed (albeit as a technicality) that it need not be
anything at all like an RC.

> Suppose I were a fast food chain and I decided I wanted to sell
> grilled ground pork patties. Would I be allowed to call them "Super
> Hamburgers"? I don't think so, because the term "hamburger" implies
> ground beef.

Actually, it doesn't imply ground beef by name, it only does by
historical representation, and THAT itself sets a potential precedent
for Meade. Amusingly, had Meade called their optical system an MLB
(Meade Light Burglar), nobody would be moaning about the fact that the
optical system isn't actually stealing light.

> It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

Indeed.

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 03:19:38
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

"Trane Francks" < > wrote
...

>> ......Does the lack of a hyperbolic
>> mirror render the RCX no longer in any way a Ritchey-Chretien? This
>> I'm sure will be one of the points to be argued.
>
> It probably will be, but then you have to consider that the design of the
> optical system is not patented or copyrighted. Moreover, Meade has been
> careful to advertise it as an "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien". The capitals in
> all words make it fully a proper name, and therefore it could even be
> claimed (albeit as a technicality) that it need not be anything at all
> like an RC.
> ........

Maybe I should sue Star Instruments and OGS for selling me a scope with
sub-standard "Ritchey-Chretien" optics when I could have gotten the far more
"Advanced" Meade optics for much less...... I must have been duped! Where's
my lawyer??! :)

BTW, one of the interesting things coming out with this is that Star
Instruments has moved from Arizona to Georgia and there is no indication on
their new website that the original owner has anything to do with the (new?)
company any longer. I bought an OGS RC partly based on the owner's
reputation for figuring these optics, and now it looks like he's gone.
Perhaps the Star Instruments RC mirror sets (OGS & RCOS scopes) are no
longer what they use to be? I'd rather have an excellent F/5 Newt & coma
corrector lens than a mediocre "RC" or "Advanced RC".

George N

Date: 26 Nov 2006 03:08:56
From: Opera Bannana
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

oh - is that what the guy is talking about ? that nonsense again -

muddy@despammed.com wrote:

> I never could understand how Meade could market the RCX line as an
> advanced Ritchey-Chretien. Meade has done a great job of bringing new
> innovations to the amateur astronomy market, but that does not give
> them the right to mislead their customers. If I slap a coat of red
> paint on my new Toyota, could I sell it as an advanced Porsche?

Date: 25 Nov 2006 16:53:23
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Decimalising RA and Dec Values

dylan wrote:
> Are you sure on this ?
> 1 deg = 60 arcminutes
> 1/15 deg = 1 arcminute
> surely...
> 1 deg = 60 arcminutes
> 1/60 deg = 1 arcminute ?

My apologies. Your're right. To correct, the declination list should
have read:

In declination, the values are:

360 deg = 360 degrees
1 deg = 1 deg
1 deg = 60 arcminutes
1/60 deg = 1 arcminute
1 arcminute = 60 arcseconds
1/60 deg = 60 arcseconds
1 / ( 60 * 60 ) = 1 arcsecond
1 / (3600) = 1 arcsecond
0.000278 deg = 1 arcsecond

- Canopus56

Date: 26 Nov 2006 08:10:54
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37 -0800, "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Does simulating an RC wavefront by changing the shape of the primary and
> adding a corrector plate qualify a design as a "modified" or "enhanced"
> RC? I don't know... I'd be inclined to say no, but there really are no
> rules for this game. With no rules, lawsuits are really questionable.
>

Hi Chris:

In this case, I'd have say "no," as the people who know something about
optics (NOT ME ;-))...tell me there's no "simulating" to it. This
design literally has nothing to do with the RC concept. I'm even told
that the secondary is not hyperbolic, as we initially heard, but
parabolic.

What gripes me about the lawsuit, however? These goobs are also suing
Meade DEALERS, including some who never advertised the scope as an
"Advance Richey Chretien."

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >

Date: 26 Nov 2006 07:03:38
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

allisonki@IGNmail.com wrote:
> gobbletwo wrote:

>
>
> It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
> about, and didn't say what was being advertised.

You expected lucid, rapier-like prose from someone writing under the
name "Gobbletwo"?! ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >

Date: 27 Nov 2006 01:51:34
From: gobbletwo
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

RMOLLISE wrote:
> allisonki@IGNmail.com wrote:
>
>>gobbletwo wrote:
>
>
>>
>>It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
>>about, and didn't say what was being advertised.
>
>
> You expected lucid, rapier-like prose from someone writing under the
> name "Gobbletwo"?! ;-)
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of:
> Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> and
> The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
>
Gobbletwo admits to his fetishes, but Rod, " rapier-like prose" has only
enlarged my head: Rebel Yell may be my downfall. ;-)

73,de jon
n2b?? :-)

Date: 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:57:54 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >And Meade is ? Ok... as if they didnt try to
> >get rid of CI through unrthical means either...
>
> Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
> unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
> I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
> (and I think its arguable)
>

Hi:

Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
Ritchey Chretiens. That said, as I indicated in my blog entry on the
subject for October 11 (<http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/ >), I still
think it's a pretty silly lawsuit. OTOH, it's tough not to think "what
goes 'round comes 'round" after the equally foolish and destructive (to
both companies) "north and level patent war." "Live by the sword, die
by the sword" also springs to mind. ;-)

Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:12:13
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37 -0800, "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
>Ritchey Chretiens...
>
>Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
>SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
>to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)

I agree it is all about marketing. All the same, many designs are
"modified" but retain the original core name. SCTs are a perfect
example- the differences there are as extreme as the RCX case (spherical
versus aspherical secondaries and primaries, all called SCTs).

Does simulating an RC wavefront by changing the shape of the primary and
adding a corrector plate qualify a design as a "modified" or "enhanced"
RC? I don't know... I'd be inclined to say no, but there really are no
rules for this game. With no rules, lawsuits are really questionable.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 26 Nov 2006 03:36:27
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

gobbletwo wrote:
> I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> well as the advertisement next to it.
>
> Comments are solicited. ;-)

It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
about, and didn't say what was being advertised.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 03:07:44
From: Opera Bannana
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

gobbletwo wrote:

> I just received my issue and was disheartened with the Editorial, as
> well as the advertisement next to it.
>
> Comments are solicited. ;-)
>
> jon

I agree! Any editorial and advertisement which are:

BLANK SPACE

must contort the aphrodesiac of the common deer Moon!
Good grief.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 21:29:28
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:

> All those companies that sell refractors with two-element objective
> lenses, and call them "apochromats"! Everyone knows that an apochromat
> is a lens that has three elements, with three kinds of glass, so that
> it can bring three different colors to the same focus.

Three different colors CAN be brought into focus using only two lenses.
Try BK7 and FPL53 for example. With 3 lenses you can make an objective
that will bring FIVE colors to the same focus if you really try hard.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:07:24
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

canopus56 wrote:
> Although I am not wealthy and cannot afford to buy a Meade RCX,

Note that recent advertisements show that Meade is now offering its
advanced optical design on less expensive models as well.

John Savard

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:05:32
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

AM wrote:
> If you have to go after
> the competition via legal means, you are doing something
> terribly wrong.

Not necessarily.

Maybe *they're* doing something terribly wrong.

Otherwise, we wouldn't need to even _have_ courts, or police, for that
matter.

In general, though, it is true that a successful company with a popular
product doesn't need to waste too much time on litigation - but even in
that case, it's worthwhile to defend one's patents and trademarks, else
one might be nibbled away around the edges.

Where would Microsoft be, if nothing was ever done about software
piracy?

John Savard

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:00:15
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Shawn wrote:
> Seems stupid to me to blow huge amounts on a legal battle over a public
> domain description. Ritchey-Chretien is hardly a brand name.

> Also, how many buyers of $4000, or $40,000 scopes don't know exactly
> what they're buying?

> Frivolous lawsuits against industry leaders doesn't seem like good
> business to me.

I can very well understand that a company in the business of selling
*real* Ritchey-Chretien telescopes might well consider the Meade RCX
telescope unfair competition, given that it is sold as a
Ritchey-Chretien telescope, but has a spherical primary.

Even before the RCX, though, Meade's Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes
departed from classical Schmidt-Cassegrain design for improved optical
performance. And the RCX does provide high optical performance, and its
design was at least inspired by the Ritchey-Chretien telescope.

Thus, while I find the lawsuit understandable, there are grounds to
argue that what Meade is doing is perfectly legitimate as well.

Of course, if that lawsuit *is* successful, guess who the next target
will be?

All those companies that sell refractors with two-element objective
lenses, and call them "apochromats"! Everyone knows that an apochromat
is a lens that has three elements, with three kinds of glass, so that
it can bring three different colors to the same focus.

Of course, an achromatic lens made out of exotic and expensive glass
types can have less dispersion than one made out of cheap, ordinary
glass - just as an apochromatic lens made from such materials can
out-do an apochromat made from more common glasses. But this doesn't
change the basic type of lens.

What if some company making three-element apochromats sued all those
companies making "ED Apochromats" with two-element lenses?

To quote Rush Limbaugh, "words mean things". A little more truth in
advertising would not be a bad thing.

John Savard

Date: 27 Nov 2006 14:11:16
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message
news:1164589215.427077.208450@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Shawn wrote:
> I can very well understand that a company in the business of selling
> *real* Ritchey-Chretien telescopes might well consider the Meade RCX
> telescope unfair competition, given that it is sold as a
> Ritchey-Chretien telescope, but has a spherical primary.

That's really the nut of the matter. The SCT market is flooded with
competitors. So, just rename your high-performance SCT as an RC and
differentiate your product from the rest of the pack. I'm also not
concerned about the technical knowledge of buyers who can afford a $4K-$40K
scope.

But it's symptomatic of the adverstising in the telescope industry as a
whole, e.g. - the 70mm Christmas refractor claiming "views to 625x" with a
full-color Hubble picture of the North American nebula on the outside of the
box as blow-up from the eyepiece.

There's fair competition, there's advertising puffing, and then there's
unfair advertising.

- Canopus56

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:20:52
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37 -0800, "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
> >Ritchey Chretiens...
> >
> >Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
> >SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
> >to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)
>
> I agree it is all about marketing. All the same, many designs are
> "modified" but retain the original core name. SCTs are a perfect
> example- the differences there are as extreme as the RCX case (spherical
> versus aspherical secondaries and primaries, all called SCTs).
>

A SCT does have a corrector plate and for as many ways you can cook it
it will still correct for spherical aberration for both or one mirror.
This is to say that the main feature of the design and indeed the
trademarl of the design itself is in having that specific feature.
Besides, there aren't many ways you can cook a SCT. In fact if
Celestron and Meade (copying the original Celestron design) had an
aspherical secondary in their SCTs all the way from the start then RCX
business wouldn't have any sense.

> Does simulating an RC wavefront by changing the shape of the primary and
> adding a corrector plate qualify a design as a "modified" or "enhanced"
> RC? I don't know... I'd be inclined to say no, but there really are no
> rules for this game. With no rules, lawsuits are really questionable.
>

There is no simulation possible, in fact the field curvature results
are radically different as it is the spherochromatism results. Probably
it can be shown theoretically that no simulation is indeed possible,
There is little defensible in the sleazy appropriation of the Ritchey
Cretien name by Meade for purely marketing purposes, and I, for one,
just hope they (Meade) get their just punishment for what the RCX
marketing is really, unfair trading.

Andrea T.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 11:37:42
From: Matthew Ota
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

And what the marketing "experts' did not realize is that only advanced
or knowledgeable astronomers know what a Ritchey Chretien telescope is,
and the only people that they could dupe is a novice astronomer who
does not even know who George Willis Ritchey was.

Meade made a mistake on this one.

Matthew Ota

RMOLLISE wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:57:54 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >And Meade is ? Ok... as if they didnt try to
> > >get rid of CI through unrthical means either...
> >
> > Meade took advantage of a broken U.S. Patent system to pursue an
> > unfortunate IP dispute. I don't really agree with what they did, but no,
> > I don't consider it as bad as going after Meade for possibly misusing
> > (and I think its arguable)
> >
>
>
> Hi:
>
> Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
> Ritchey Chretiens. That said, as I indicated in my blog entry on the
> subject for October 11 (<http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/>), I still
> think it's a pretty silly lawsuit. OTOH, it's tough not to think "what
> goes 'round comes 'round" after the equally foolish and destructive (to
> both companies) "north and level patent war." "Live by the sword, die
> by the sword" also springs to mind. ;-)
>
> Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "aplantic
> SCT," or even an "MCT" (Meade Cassegrain Telescope), but they just had
> to go the RC route...more sexy, the marketeers thought, I reckon. ;-)
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of:
> Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> and
> The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>

Date: 27 Nov 2006 04:50:02
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

gobbletwo wrote:
> RMOLLISE wrote:
> > allisonki@IGNmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>gobbletwo wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>It's hard to comment, since you didn't say what the editorial was
> >>about, and didn't say what was being advertised.
> >
> >
> > You expected lucid, rapier-like prose from someone writing under the
> > name "Gobbletwo"?! ;-)
> >
> > Peace,
> > Rod Mollise
> > Author of:
> > Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> > and
> > The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> > <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
> >
> Gobbletwo admits to his fetishes, but Rod, " rapier-like prose" has only
> enlarged my head: Rebel Yell may be my downfall. ;-)
>
>

BUT...as they say..."Death, where is thy sting!"

:-)

Date: 27 Nov 2006 17:56:37
From:
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
> Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
> news:ni5km2lg64h2jj2bid82gljglpqlhecrfh@4ax.com:
>
> > "enhanced". Details of the actual optical performance were, in fact,
> > made available, and the RCX design appears to have better optical
> > performance in many respects than an equivalent sized RC. I also read
>
> An interesting side effect of the lawsuit, at least in my mind: I am
> beginning to believe that if RCOS goes to that length, the Meade design
> really works well.
> [...]

That is true, as Roland Christen of Astro-Physics would concur.

Though I don't expect Astro-Physics to become a Meade dealer and sell
LX200R and RCX400 scopes alongside A-P's refractors and mounts (though
A-P will be selling a lot of optical accessories for the LX200R and
RCX400,
see below), Roland hangs-out in the Yahoo "RCX400" group, had written
some
good things about the optical design, and just wrote this there last
Friday:

The RCX is good Message #9232 of 9255 Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:30 pm
"uncarollo2" <chris1011@... >

I have had a chance now to use a 10" F10 version of the famed
Meade "RC" scopes, the 10" LX200R. I was skeptical that it would
perform on a par with any of the more advanced RC types, so I did not
expect really good results from it. In any case, I made a special
adapter to allow me to use the AP 0.75x telecompressor on the back of
the scope, and mounted an SBIG ST10XE and an STL11k camera. The
ST10XE was not a good match for this scope. The star sizes were
consistently on the order of 10 - 12 pixels FWHM, and the field size
was small, so that the image looked relatively poor when adjusted to
my monitor size. Basically, the image was being way oversampled and
was not taking advantage of the full field size of this scope.

The STL11K camera with its 9 micron pixels was a much better match,
especially when I imaged at 2x2 binning. The field size with the .75x
compressor is close to 1 degree and even at 100% size, the final
image is almost twice as large as my monitor with excellent
sharpness.

I spent one night shooting M33 and posted the result in the files
section.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RCX400/files/Astrophotos%20with%20RCX/

under M33 folder. I compared this image to several posted by classic
RC users, and I have to admit, it stacks up quite well, even when
compared to those taken with fairly large RCs. I shot through high
thin clouds, so my signal to noise is not what it could be. Also, my
observatory is located next to the Astro-Physics factory in a light
polluted area with several suburban shopping centers and car
dealerships just down the road. A better test would be to take the
scope out to a dark sky site (if I ever get the time).

I had the scope mounted on the new Astro-Physics Mach 1 mounting, and
I posted another image showing a screen shot of the MaximDL tracking
graph during one of the exposures. Each pixel of the STL11k guide
chip is approximately 0.75 arc sec at the focal length I was using,
so you can see that this little mount really tracks like a champ -
less than 1 arc sec rms.

One other note: Although the telecompressor would theoretically
provide a reduction to F7.5, the actual reduction with the 10" is
closer to F8.5. The reason for that is that the compressor requires
more back focus than what you need at F10. Moving the mirror forward
to get this backfocus results in the scope producing between F11 and
F12, thus there is a kind of tug of war going on between compressor
and moving mirror. In any case, the resultant resolution is
maintained, and actually all the compressed images show slightly
better resolution than the F10 images that I took. (By the way, AP
will be offering an adapter system to allow 2.7" accessories to be
attached on the back of all Meade RCX and LXR scopes).

Vignetting is evident both at F10 and F8.5, but not so bad that it
cannot be fully taken care of with flat fielding. Star images without
the compressor are quite good to the corners. With the compressor the
stars are oval at the extremes. Even so, the stars over the same
field size are pretty much round either way. It's just that the field
is larger with the compressor, and more stars are shown. Cropping the
images slightly results in a very nice field with minimal vignetting
and astigmatism in the corners. Resolution is pretty much identical
either way, but the signal level is significantly higher, which means
shorter exposure for the same density.

Critique of the 10" LX200R: In my professional opinion, there are a
couple of things about this scope that are a negative, and if Meade
changed the design somewhat, they would have a first class system,
kind of unbeatable at the price, even if they raised the price a bit
for the upgrade.

1) the main complaint is that the focuser is so coarse that it is
very difficult to get perfect focus. A 10:1 mechanism would be a nice
addition, or simply using a finer thread on the focuser screw (I may
modify mine with a fine thread).

2) the image shift is quite bad, which prevents going back and forth
during focusing. One must approach from one direction slowly. Adding
a Crayford focuser would solve this, but that eats up more back
focus, and causes the focal ratio to increase yet again.

3) the aluminum tube results in significant focus shift during
temperature changes, and coupled with the poor focuser system it is
hard to take long exposures. The obvious solution is carbon fiber.

4) although the secondary obstruction is quite large, especially on
the main mirror, the rear opening of the scope is quite small. This
prevents placing telecompressor optics closer up the light path. As a
result, there is a limit to the amount of compression that can be
achieved with a high quality telecompressor, especially one that
covers a large field of the STL cameras. Even at F10, the opening is
too small to fully cover the field. I don't know what the situation
is for the 12" and larger scopes, but the 10" has a rear aperture of
only 50mm, whereas the mirror central obstruction is over 90mm in
diameter.

If anyone is interested, I can post a picture of my 10"LX200R - Mach1
setup. Again, I think for the money this is quite a respectable scope
with some real possibilities for high quality astro images.

Rolando

Date: 27 Nov 2006 17:45:50
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

AM wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
> >
> > You anti-Meade people are pathetic.
>
>
>
> But I guess it's OK to you if Meade sues
> someone right ??
>
>
>
>
>
> AM

The only time it's ok is when someone has clearly taken something
YOU'VE designed, without your consent and used it to make money. So
unless RC Optical Systems was around in 1910.....

http://www.resonancepub.com/optical.htm
The Ritchey-Chr=E9tien Telescope was developed jointly by American
optician George Willis Ritchey and French optical designer Henri
Chr=E9tien in the early 1910's.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 15:14:38
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

atasselli@hotmail.com wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On 26 Nov 2006 07:01:37 -0800, "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Arguable in what way? Meade's design has basically _nothing_ to do with
> > >Ritchey Chretiens...
> > >
> > >Meade could have called this telescope an "optimized SCT," an "apl